@Rooster> I wouldn't say that OOP was a wrong move for BMThen we agree, OOP didn't ruin BMax, because it was low level OOP, and optional. Going OOP was a wrong turn, that would have bad consequences if taken to its Java-esk extreme, which he did : making nearly everything OO in monkey, was a sledgehammer for walnuts wrt hobby game making.

> I just don't like hunting down a bunch of globals every time I change something.Thats no reason to go OOP. Stick your globals in a typedef. If you mean global functions then I assume u are working on very large projects with over 500 functions that u can't keep track of, in which case OOP is viable.

It's kind of ironic that more OOP was added in a language intended to support platforms that mostly host the simplest types of games: HTML, flash, Android, iOS.

lol that's just Mark ignoring his market, as usual.

I still approach a problem in a procedural way, quickly get the routine working, then move to OOP when I have working code. I then put it into a more rigid OOP framework. That's the problem with OOP, you really have to have a good picture of how things all fit together immediately - then implement. But with game development, ideas and structures change throughout the development process.

But when you do have a good OOP structure, things come together very quickly.

@Rooster> I wouldn't say that OOP was a wrong move for BMThen we agree, OOP didn't ruin BMax, because it was low level OOP, and optional. Going OOP was a wrong turn, that would have bad consequences if taken to its Java-esk extreme, which he did : making nearly everything OO in monkey, was a sledgehammer for walnuts wrt hobby game making.

Yeah, I tried to look up tutorials for Java once, the "hello world" example confused me to no end.

> I just don't like hunting down a bunch of globals every time I change something.Thats no reason to go OOP. Stick your globals in a typedef. If you mean global functions then I assume u are working on very large projects with over 500 functions that u can't keep track of, in which case OOP is viable.

Lol! My project is nowhere near that big. It just helps me keep my code more tidy and flexible.That said, I've been using my game as a way to learn programing, so it's messy anyways.

It's kind of ironic that more OOP was added in a language intended to support platforms that mostly host the simplest types of games: HTML, flash, Android, iOS.

lol that's just Mark ignoring his market, as usual.

I still approach a problem in a procedural way, quickly get the routine working, then move to OOP when I have working code. I then put it into a more rigid OOP framework. That's the problem with OOP, you really have to have a good picture of how things all fit together immediately - then implement. But with game development, ideas and structures change throughout the development process.

But when you do have a good OOP structure, things come together very quickly.

Exactly. Program structure resists change and you don't know what ideas you might have tomorrow. Also I simply don't want to plan my code structure in my hobby programming. I find OOP and planning program structure to be backend clutter that ties me down and prevents getting more frontend code done.

I know this is an old post but hey. I pledged too but finally realized I didn't want to switch every couple of years to the 'new' language. MonkeyX was alright, but Monkey2 seems to be a rehash with some changed syntax and I don't feel like jumping through that hoop again. These days I use Javascript and Pixi JS. And release through Cordova. I also mess about with Construct 3 for quick prototyping.